Proof the Media is converging Natural Disasters with Terrorism to elicit "Conditioned Reflexes"

First it's hurricane Dean, then it's the Deutsche Bank next to the WTC site burning down (don't forget to mention the more than 700 human remains
from 9/11), then it's the earthquake disaster down in Peru (2nd to the more "obviously caused by global warming"), and last but not least a
aircraft hijacking supposedely done by Al Qaeda.

This is classic 'training' in Conditioned Reflexes. The idea is you learn to subconsciously associate one thing with another to elicit combined
responses.
Learn more about Conditioned Reflexes, which can be found in any Psychology textbook and applies to humans: en.wikipedia.org...www.google.com...
Also see Operant Conditioning & Cognitive Behaviorism: en.wikipedia.org...

This piece was the first thing I clicked on at the MSNBC site. I don't watch TV, but I'm sure if you pay attention if you do you might observe this
practice quite often with natural-disasters/"global-warming" and terrorism.
This is classic fearmongering in our culture of fear. en.wikipedia.org...en.wikipedia.org...

This month I also observed similar practice in Newsweek's already infamous "Global Warming is a Hoax*" global warming skeptics hitpiece that blasts
anyone with a different view as being "Deniers", likening then to insane Holocaust Deniers. The next page after this 9 page section was, you guessed
it, "Surge of Suicide Bombers".

Similar practice can be found in Al Gore's An Inconveneient Truth film promotional trailer and TV commercial, where he merges in less than 6
frames of a nuclear bomb blast which is completely out of context with his Global Warming presentation.

it takes at least two to party and such blunt attempts at conditioning will of course be welcomed by all those who clandestinely wish to display
agressive and radical actions and reactions.... can't be their fault, after all.

that said, the reason might be much simpler and staightforward: 'news' are usually nothing more than yet another form of entertainment for public
consumption, as long as what's reported does not affect you. therefore, lumping together all things scary makes sense, so people can have their
'kick of fear' in a single piece.

a tell-tale sign would be if terror/natural desasters/global warming were displayed in random order, otoh, if there's method to the madness
(consistent, predictable spot placement and order), you're probably completely right, though.

It should be noted that MSNBC also ran with the Newsweek story by citing it and retitling it "The Truth About Denial". Nevermind that even one of
the Newsweek editors stepped forward blasting the yellow-journalism story, because Newsweek is a direct affiliate of MSNBC. www.prisonplanet.com...www.msnbc.msn.com...

The Establishment controlled "Left" and "Right" parties each use their own batch of terror doomsday to guide their followers to the same
indisputable outcome: "Globalization" and social control by means of DARPA cognitive artificial intelligence. Below is a draft version of a portion
of the title sequence for my upcoming full length documentary, "An Unholy Alliance", which deconstructs the phoney/overhyped terrormongering that
each side uses towards the same ends:

Lets say I want to develop associative conditioning in a human. A simple and effective method of doing so is by presenting a negative stimulus
(eyeblink) with a neutral stimulus (a table). After many trails of association, thoughts or perception of a table will result in a negative emotional
reflex.

Alternatively, for associative conditioning, we might have a bell (neutral) associated with food (positive). In this case, perception of the sound of
the bell produces salivation, that is, expectation of reward. Pavlov's famous experiment.

In another type of conditioning, I would associate a reward with a particular behaviour. So, this is operant conditioning, the Skinner type of
conditioning. So, for example, I would get pigeons to peck at a button three times to get a reward. They learn to peck three times for reward. Then I
might abolish this by presenting a punishment or no reward for the same response.

So far so good?

So you have found an example of associating a negative stimulus (a hurricane) with a negative stimulus (a fire in new york), with a negative stimulus
(an earthquake), with a negative stimulus (a terrorist group).

This is basically comparable to presenting eyeblink (negative stimuli) with fearful stimuli (negative stimuli). Which will just produce the same
conditioned behaviour as pre-conditioning, i.e. a negative response. No change. But in your case you have the association of natural disasters (-ve)
with terrorism (-ve).

Unless you want to suggest any of the stimuli are not negatively valenced.

Melatonin, you are quite right.
As a psych undergrad. I've had all of this beaten into my head as the fundamentals of the social side of psych. (and its offshoots). I prefer depth
psychology, but it's required to learn those things as well...

I took a journalism course once where the teacher told us, repeatedly, that we were to write on a 3rd-4th grade level, to sensationalize everything,
that's it's all infotainment. It's the whole 'Man Bites Dog' thing...and, given our cultural disposition (possibly even our nature...I'll
have to get back to you with that one), we are more apt to pay attention to something 'sensational' rather than, say, a story on a boy in a town you
don't know that helps old women across the street.
Then again, we've also had all of that beaten into us.

It could go either way. It could be the money, the sensationalist aspect...or it could be propaganda.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say, I'm by no means poo-pooing your theory of this conditioning, but the example given in the first
post appears to me to be almost unavoidable. I mean if your top two stories are negatives, it would almost be ludicrous to drop down to some lesser
story just to insert a fluffy feeling between the two, right? I agree with you that the media have for years now been drama whores, but I think the
affinity to the negative drama has something to do with profits - not necessarily an intentional attempt to condition. But as I said, I'm not
rejecting the idea, just not fully accepting it.

Your assumptions, I believe are correct. the beginning of psycho manipulation started during world war 2 by the Nazi's. here are a couple of links
that will give you a little, or a lot of insight into the conditioning of the people.

Both "sides" do fear monger for their own political ends. Media is a tool by which to condition people (just look at our current health and
spending habits). Brainwashing via television and mass media is a reality (they don't call it "programming" for nothing).

BUT...

I don't know how long you've been watching news, or how much you watch, but have you ever heard of an old adage that goes "if it bleeds it
leads"? The news has always been one disaster after another. In fact they go out of their way to look for stories of human misery to present to
you. Especially the local cheesy news "reporters" that listen to the police scanners and chase ambulances so they can get to every little "event"
in your town to report on the late news. It's nothing more than voyeurism of the human condition.

I don't think it's a purposeful plot on anybody's part. It's more an emergent property of the medium and practices of it's providers.
.

Thank you so much for this thread. I am very interested in this topic. I also wonder how often they put out a story or a release information
(shock the system) that is strictly designed to gauge our mental state or how far they can push us before we will have had enough.

Here is a web site with some interesting info. Sorry if it does not link or has already been discussed - I am a noob.

Due to the nature of our brains, we're all associative thinkers. Our mindsets and perceptions are based on patterns. Why then, didn't they group the
subjects together? To not group them based on subject would seem to take near-conscious effort.

Training the public to associate the 2 together makes economical sense, beyond the obvious emotional benefits in regards to the obvious cases like Al
Gore's use of these techniques, because conditioned responses between these 2 categories have long term payoffs for the Media Establishment as the
more dramatic response to 'normal' issues means the 'better ratings' in general.

We're dealing with 2 different subjects converging into one. Each subject itself has many motives for 'deceptive' bias depending on the person or
organization or agency, that we can use to 'rationalize' observed biases and effects, but the end product that we're talking about here exists
none-the-less. Even if this example is the result of unwitting subconscious -on the part of the presenters- Culture of Fear it's still a symptom of
the problem in general. However, the order of their subject presentation, and their direct affiliation with Newsweek and the rest makes the odds of
this all being 'an accident' slim to none. Add to all of that the reporting methods of the WTC site fire andd it becomes harder to excuse all of
this. In fact, the entire perception of the fire event as being related to terrorism is due to their choice in how to present the matter. It's not
even a simple as they mentioned it just so happened to be next to '9/11', they bent over backwards to ensure the percieved association would occur
with the viewers.

Well, I guess you can get hold of them and see if they're willing to categorize their news cast. I think this is a case of how you think and
perceive versus how others think and perceive. I don't see the problem in two different categories of news being discussed consecutively. And I
don't view it as an attempt to connect the two. But obviously, on both points, you do.

I would suggest that if we were going to categorise this section of news, the weather section would be separate. Then we have news round-up.

The leader in the summary was the new york story. American news, american story. Then we have earthquake, a bit nearer to home, i.e. americas. Then we
have terrorism, further from home.

The fact they are all negative, just shows how the news-media works.

Due to the nature of our brains, we're all associative thinkers. Our mindsets and perceptions are based on patterns. Why then, didn't they
group the subjects together? To not group them based on subject would seem to take near-conscious effort.

Of course, but how can we categorise a natural disaster with terrorism. Essentially two different beasts. One natural, one human-made. They are both
negatively valenced, therefore there is no conditioned behavioural change by presenting one category with the other.

In many ways, you are cherrypicking this stuff. There is a hurricane at the moment, so it's not surprising to see it take a big chunk of the weather
round-up. I'm sure at other times, it just a case of 'oh rain here, and sun here'. Then we run into the new stories which do tend to be negative.
Not always, but it is attention-catching I guess.

Evolution has ensured that negative stimuli catch attention.

If you want to use such a conditioning approach, I think it might apply better to the Gore trailer. If we take an individual who had never really
thought about climate change, we could consider this issue to be a novel and essentially neutral concept. Thus, associating the nuke cloud (-ve) with
climate change, could be considered a form of conditioning.

But I would say that conditioning is not so easy under such circumstances. It's pretty hard unless the conditions are well controlled and trials are
repeated. Much easier with primary physiological emotional responses (i.e. shocks, food, eyeblinks etc) though.

Well, if I'm not mistaken the version of the video first presented is no longer in that format: link

At about the 30 second marker it changes to different analysis. I'm going thru all of them now trying to confirm...

The one that is titled "Dean gains strength" starts off like the clip I captured last night, but at 30 seconds it switches to another feed. When you
click on "Hurricanes projected path" you seem to get the post-30-second-mark found in the captured clip.

So apparently the mashup I found is no longer there. Unless I'm missing something, it's clear that the other clips wont be of much use in looking
for parallel examples (looking for such is how I noticed this discrepancy). Apparently it's obvious that we should all keep our look out for this
practice. If somebody has a genuine desire to analyze the raw video clip I uploaded I can figure out a way to make that happen.

Originally posted by Valhall
I think this is a case of how you think and perceive versus how others think and perceive. I don't see the problem in two different categories of
news being discussed consecutively. And I don't view it as an attempt to connect the two. But obviously, on both points, you do.

Well, then I guess it's a a matter of we're all right, any who looks at it and tries to form an opinion.

I'd like to at least point out that playing those clips in such an order can function as what I pointed out regardless of if that was their
intentions. To me it seems obvious that the people pulling the newscasting strings would be at least as educated (self-eductaed I am) in the topics
I've pointed out and in my view this reality slims the odds of accidental/coincidental clumping as observed.

Originally posted by melatonin
The fact they are all negative, just shows how the news-media works.

At least we can agree on something here. Did you note the over-emotional content of virtually every example? Also, the IF content of the hurricane
coverage. IF is the same sort of anxiety-mongering Gore uses in his propaganda film.

Due to the nature of our brains, we're all associative thinkers. Our mindsets and perceptions are based on patterns. Why then, didn't they
group the subjects together? To not group them based on subject would seem to take near-conscious effort.

Of course, but how can we categorise a natural disaster with terrorism.

With an ongoing assault in the 2 it'sentirely possible, and that's speaking of terms of even if the subject only believed in one of the issues. It
all comes down to whether or not you're consciously aware of these inherent processes, which most people aren't and for 'good' reason.

Essentially two different beasts. One natural, one human-made. They are both negatively valenced, therefore there is no conditioned behavioural change
by presenting one category with the other.

There is if you lump them sequentually, which they did. You're right tho, there's no literal connection, therefore, why did they do it like that? O,
yeah, because of whatever reason we can use to rationalize it. Considering that's your argument, wouldn't you say that the humanitarian disaster
caused by the quite recent Peru earthquake trumps the abondoned building fire in NYC?

In many ways, you are cherrypicking this stuff.

See my above post. That clip was the first thing i encountered when visiting there, and going back to find more exmples was a futile effort as all the
clips are now completely seperated into single contexts.

But I would say that conditioning is not so easy under such circumstances. It's pretty hard unless the conditions are well controlled and
trials are repeated.

Trials and testing aren't necessary. The associaive concepts I'm underscoring here have been well established for generations now. They would surely
know that they dont need to test it, rather they only need to implement it in the most subtle way possible (like any good propaganda), and repeat the
paired sequences over and over as much as subtlely possible. It just so happens to turn out that the 2 initial pieces of media I've encountered this
week from MSNBC/Newsweek do just this. This all makes me wish I had cable TV, DVD recorders, and the time to analyze the news because I'd be willing
to bet this practice occurs quite frequently in the Establishment Media. it all come sdown to if you know how to spot it, I hope that at the minimum
people walk away from this thread with such insight...

I think we almost agree on much of the rest. I can't but agree that news-media are sensationalising stuff. All about ratings, I feel.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
There is if you lump them sequentually, which they did. You're right tho, there's no literal connection, therefore, why did they do it like that? O,
yeah, because of whatever reason we can use to rationalize it. Considering that's your argument, wouldn't you say that the humanitarian disaster
caused by the quite recent Peru earthquake trumps the abondoned building fire in NYC?

I would think that they generally rank news in various ways. I suppose, impact, age, location etc etc are all important. Carrying on the psychological
approach, repeating stimuli does lead to lessening of the emotional impact.

Thus, most of the UK news (sky news) today is about a fire in a hotel that killed a few people. Then, we have the hurricane, followed by a climate
change protest. No earthquake at all. I suppose you could try to make connections between them as well.

If you just want to say that the news is attempting to keep people in a vigilant and fearful state, maybe...

Could also be a tried and tested approach to ratings.

Trials and testing aren't necessary.

Easy to say, unless you have actually had to develop conditioned responses in people or change pre-existing attitudes

One trial conditioning is easier in with primary reinforcers, even then not always effective.

Conditioning is not so easy with wishy-washy fuzzy concepts and stimuli. I've just watched a section of news about the hurricane. That was followed
by the sports news. Man City beat Man Utd.

I still liked that news, and you could mix it with 25 pieces about death and destruction. The footie news would still make me happy

But you're still thinking this would produce a conditioned response, i.e. associating negative with negative. It would just bolster an already
conditioned response, producing no real change.

I accept that terrorism and natural disasters are well-established as negative stimuli and concepts. But, you're attempting to go a tad further,
no?

Originally posted by oldone
Your assumptions, I believe are correct. the beginning of psycho manipulation started during world war 2 by the Nazi's. here are a couple of links
that will give you a little, or a lot of insight into the conditioning of the people.

Thanks for them links..Very interesting but also very depressing. I 100% agree with what the OP is saying about conditioning. I haven't watched The
news for 3 months and i only turn the T.V on to watch the football. I feel much better for not knowing what is happening in the world or in my own
back garden. Ignorant? yes, But ignorance is bliss.

The next time I find myself sitting down and attentively watching the news on TV, rather than simply reading it bit by bit as the day goes by online,
I think I'll undertake a little study.

I'd like to look at the ordering of the stories and see if sometimes "lesser" stories seem to get a higher billing because of their general subject
matter.

Suppose your top stories are a natural disaster, a terrorist threat, and bad news for the Bush administration.

The order makes a big difference in the chain of experiences you go through.

If the disaster is before the threat, terrorism doesn't look scary- something bad is happening right now, compared to oh, they say something bad is
gonna happen.

If the threat comes before the disaster though, they told you something bad was gonna happen, then something bad happened. Intellectually there is no
connection between the two, but that doesn't matter in terms of association. If that pattern repeats, you will come to expect actual bad things to
happen after you hear a threat.

The third factor is important too. If you go threat to disaster, putting bad news for the white house after that can either say, "bush is paying for
letting it happen" or "they're attacking our president when we need a strong leader"- depending on context. Whereas putting it up front adds other
possible dimensions, depending on context- it can add, "they undermined our president and the terrorists were emboldened so they threatened us and
then something bad happened."

Because hey, people are that impressionable. Look around at these people who will try to talk serious politics in terms of Hollywood blockbusters and
tell me that people won't subconsciously believe anything that's put in front of them, despite all reason, as long as clear associations are drawn
for them to follow.

So it would be really interesting to see if you can consistently find disorder in the prioritization of news which establishes a consistent pattern of
associations. I'm guessing the answer will probably be no. Just the fact that bad news is what people will pay to hear is enough to explain it all,
and I bet that the lowest common denominator will infact be bad news, and not specific associations of themes or diconnects between newsworthiness and
prioritization. But that's not to say I think it's impossible on its face.

I think that's a more interesting way to view it. You could have a sort of anticipation of threat (could hurt me). Then a sort of relief it's not
you (didn't hurt me) from the next item. The ordering could alter the anticipation of threat.

I guess you would expect more threat from the 'not me' then 'could be me' order. Not sure if such studies have been done...

It's certainly true that people are impressionable, I think news-media has a lot to do with parental fears etc, and media in general has much to
answer for (anorexia, body image, cult of celebrity etc).

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.